Wilson v. Cent. Vermont Ry. Co.

• Decision Date: 31 May 1921
• Citation: 239 Mass. 80,131 N.E. 169
• Parties: WILSON v. CENTRAL VERMONT RY. CO. (two cases).
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

239 Mass. 80

131 N.E. 169

WILSON

v.CENTRAL VERMONT RY. CO. (two cases).

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

May 31, 1921.

Appeal from Superior Court, Suffolk County; William Cushing Wait, Judge.

Two suits in equity by Grafton L. Wilson against Central Vermont Railway Company. From interlocutory and final decrees sustaining demurrers and dismissing the bills, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

The suits were brought by a holder of bonds of the defendant to reach moneys to which it was alleged defendant was entitled from the United States government under Act of Congress of March 21, 1918, and the Transportation Act of 1920. The demurrers were on the grounds that the bill showed no right to relief in equity, that there was a plain, adequate, and complete remedy at law, that the court had no jurisdiction, that the alleged claims were not such as could not be attached or taken on execution at law, and that the United States was not joined as a party.Hale & Dorr, of Boston (Grafton L. Wilson, of Boston, of counsel), for appellant.

Hurlburt, Jones & Hall, Henry F. Hurlburt, Jr., and Philip N. Jones, all of Boston, for appellee.

DE COURCY, J.

These two suits were brought under R. L. c. 159, § 3, cl. 7, to reach and apply certain property or interests of the defendant in payment of its overdue bonds held by the plaintiff. The records in the two suits are identical except that the first was brought upon bonds of the total face value of $42,000, and the second for bonds totaling $6,000. The cases are here on the plaintiff's appeal from decrees of the superior court, sustaining the defendant's demurrers, and dismissing the bills.

The bills allege in substance, that under ‘the Transportation Act of 1920’ the Interstate Commerce Commission, as soon as practicable after September 1, 1920, is required to ascertain and certify to the Secretary of the Treasury the amounts necessary to make good to carriers certain guaranties of the railway operating income provided for by that act; that said Secretary is directed ‘thereupon to draw warrants in favor of each such carrier’; and that the commission has certified to the Secretary of the Treasury that the sum of $200,000 is necessary to make good said guaranty to the defendant.

The bills further allege that under the Federal Control Act of March 21, 1918, 40 Stat. 451, c. 25, § 1 (U. S. Comp. St. 1918, U. S. Comp. St. Ann. Supp. 1919, § 3115 3/4a), the defendant is entitled to certain compensation in lieu of its railway operating income, the precise nature of which is unknown to the plaintiff. He prays that these claims against the United States be reached and applied in payment of his debt; that the defendant be ordered to prosecute said claims until the issue of warrants based thereon; and to assign such warrant if and when issued to some person to be appointed by the court; that enough of the proceeds be retained by that person to satisfy the plaintiff's claim; and that the debt due to the plaintiff be established, and the defendant ordered to pay the same.

The Federal Control Act of 1918 provided that during the period of such federal control the carrier making the agreement provided for in section 1 ‘shall receive as just compensation an annual sum, payable from time to time in reasonable installments, for each year and prorate for any fractional year of such federal control, not exceeding a sum equivalent as nearly as may be to its average annual railway operating income for the three years ended June thirtieth, nineteen hundred and seventeen.’ That any railway operating income accruing during the period of federal control in excess of such just compensation shall remain the property of the United States.' Elaborate provisions were made in the act for the computation and certification of annual operating income, for maintenance, repairs, renewals and depreciation of the property, for the determination of unadjusted claims, settlement of losses, and other details. The bill alleges that the defendant entered into a written agreement as provided for in the act; but it fails to allege what are its terms, or what compensation thereunder, if any, is payable to the defendant. The Transportation Act of 1920 (41 Stat. 456) provided that federal control should terminate on March 1, 1920, and the guaranty period was the six months beginning on that date. This act provided with much elaboration for such details as the settlement of matters arising out of federal control, and the reimbursement to carriers for deficits during that control. It guaranteed that ‘the railway operating income of such carrier for the guaranty period as a whole shall not be less than one-half the amount named in such contract as annual compensation.’ It stipulated that if for the guaranty period as a whole the operating income is in...